Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

research.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–349 of 349 posts

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#341

Post by hardware2win »

em-bee wrote: post #336
hardware2win wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have 20% FF users and 70% chromium users, then I shouldnt deploy a feature which will serve those 70% and wait who knows how long till FF catches up? Wtf.

you are willing to anger 20% of your userbase? you can do whatever you want, just don't expect everyone to go along. but if i run a business and my revenue depends on my browser users, i'd be very hesitant at loosing even 5% of them, let alone 20%.

Why would all of them leave your service just because one thing is not available on ff?

Popular as hell services are constantly annoying users e.g reddit fb

Or arent or werent available on web at all - iirc instagram

If you have leverage then they aint gonna leave as hard as you make it sound

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#342

Post by elzbardico »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #313
elzbardico wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those cases, there is Android. My youngest one has an android phone, and everyone else in our family has an iPhone. It is not like you are forced to buy an iPhone. Those restrictions are actually part of its market differentiator.

No. All that happy talk about differentiation and market forces only makes sense when there is an actual competition. We have an effective oligopoly with no real choices between them. If there is no real choice, as consumers we have to force companies to adopt more consumer-friendly posture ( and yes, that means sideloading and all the dangers that entails ).

An oligopoly is not a monopoly. You can argue that there needs to be more differentiation, not that there isn't any. Some people want to sideload, and they can have an Android. But some other people are pretty much satisfied with not being able to sideload, the uniformity it brings, and the other perceived positive side-effects they see.

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#343

Post by pbasista »

coldtea wrote: post #330
pbasista wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "giving the option" is as good as forcing the users From what perspective? > third party devs ... will, given the option, force users to install unvetted apps It is up to the users to allow e.g. Facebook application to install additional applications. No one, and especially no app, should be able to force them to do so on an open OS. If you refer to predatory practices where an application would disable some of its…

> If you refer to predatory practices where an application would disable some of its functionality until an additional "unvetted" application is installed, then this is definitely an issue. Worse, there wont even be a vetted application. It will only be an unvetted application you'll be asked to sideload to get the functionality at all. And soon: alternative app stores, with their own rules and no central control. Fr…

> there wont even be a vetted application

I do not understand your reasoning. Any app store or in general any source from where an application could be installed implicitly provides a trust model. Whether it is Google's Play Store, a GitHub repository or e.g. John Doe's personal website. The users then have the freedom to choose whom they would like to trust.

> Has that "educating" and "targeted measures" ever worked?

Yes. Users are cautious before running anything as root. They check a browser addon before installing it. They do not open media from unsolicited e-mails. And so on.

It is, however, all besides the point.

Even if there currently were no effective targeted measures that could be used, it still would not mean that we should resort to undermining everyone's freedom, in my opinion. Not in this particular case.

There are legitimate cases where everyone's freedom is restricted in order to make the society a better place. For instance, we as a society have chosen to not tolerate stealing and we put the individuals who do so behind bars. This is broadly accepted because it brings benefits to everyone. We do not need to worry about being stolen from that much.

However, there is no general benefit to the society that I am able to see which would materialize as a result of limiting everyone's freedom to use their own devices. I can only see a lot of negatives.

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#344

Post by em-bee »

hardware2win wrote: post #341
em-bee wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are willing to anger 20% of your userbase? you can do whatever you want, just don't expect everyone to go along. but if i run a business and my revenue depends on my browser users, i'd be very hesitant at loosing even 5% of them, let alone 20%.

Why would all of them leave your service just because one thing is not available on ff? Popular as hell services are constantly annoying users e.g reddit fb Or arent or werent available on web at all - iirc instagram If you have leverage then they aint gonna leave as hard as you make it sound

well, it depends on whether the site breaks if a browser feature is missing or not.

if it doesn't break then you have a graceful fallback which i did already suggest as an acceptable way to support new features in case they are not supported.

but if the site breaks in some way, it may prevent me to complete the objective on the site. if i wanted to buy something, and the site doesn't work because of that missing browser feature, then i will have to go buy somewhere else. it doesn't matter how much leverage the site has if i can't use it.

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#345

Post by omeid2 »

frameset wrote: post #83
omeid2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No; and No. Anything that is not licensed as "Free Software" or "Open-Source software" is "Commercial Operating System".

How does Red Hat Enterprise Linux fit into that classification? It's both commercial and open source.

That is not "Linux".

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#346

Post by omeid2 »

SSLy wrote: post #113
omeid2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No; and No. Anything that is not licensed as "Free Software" or "Open-Source software" is "Commercial Operating System".

Linux can be commercial, look at RHEL, SuSE, Ubuntu. The moniker you're looking for is proprietary.

They're far more than Linux, in the sense that a product using Sqlite isn't "Sqlite".

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#347

Post by jckahn »

BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #276
jckahn wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd hate for this to be the de-facto platform for "everything" going forward. How come? It seems like a positive, user-empowering shift to me.

How does it empower the user, you think?

Because users can control their experience more than any other platform. All browsers have powerful devtools built in and users can freely install extensions to enhance their experience. And the source (or at least executing) code cannot be hidden. The array of options at browser users’ disposal is unmatched.

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#348

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

elzbardico wrote: post #342
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. All that happy talk about differentiation and market forces only makes sense when there is an actual competition. We have an effective oligopoly with no real choices between them. If there is no real choice, as consumers we have to force companies to adopt more consumer-friendly posture ( and yes, that means sideloading and all the dangers that entails ).

An oligopoly is not a monopoly. You can argue that there needs to be more differentiation, not that there isn't any. Some people want to sideload, and they can have an Android. But some other people are pretty much satisfied with not being able to sideload, the uniformity it brings, and the other perceived positive side-effects they see.

No argument from me.

What did I say though >> "We have an effective oligopoly"

I did not argue we have a monopoly. I argued we have an oligopoly at best ( if you count Pine and similar as viable candidates ) and duopoly at worst, which somehow manages to be worse than a monopoly for one reason and one reason only.. monopolies are more tightly regulated. Try talking about regulating current batch of market leaders and you will only hear 'private enterprise','if you don't like it, start your own', which completely manages to ignore the problem to begin with.

Hmm. Why is that statement somehow appear axiomatic why and does each sentence fragment logically follows one another? Why is it not 'some people want to use their purchase as they see fit so any device they pick they can do what they please with including "sideload"'?

I would argue with that.

One. Not all users know it is an option. Two. Existence of various workaround to allow sideloading suggests otherwise.

If there is one thing world needs now, it is not uniformity.

Would you be willing to elaborate?

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#349

Post by mike_hearn »

GeekyBear wrote: post #335
mike_hearn wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being made by the cited article is that a tiny interpreter that activates days or weeks after an app goes live can't be detected by any app store review process. You have no idea how many such droppers are active in the iOS App Store because only Apple can look for them, and nobody knows if they do or to what extent they do. That's why both platforms also use a sandbox. The dropper still needs to work withi…

> The point being made by the cited article is that a tiny interpreter that activates days or weeks after an app goes live can't be detected by any app store review process. You have no idea how many such droppers are active in the iOS App Store because only Apple can look for them, and nobody knows if they do or to what extent they do. The point being that Apple doesn't allow information downloaded from random place…

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. The issue is not what Apple allows, it's what they can detect and block. They can't detect arbitrary interpreters and therefore you have no idea if this is happening on the app store. You just have to take Apple's word for it that it's not. We're talking about malware, by definition it doesn't care what the rules are. Android is more open and so third parties can go investigate and find malware that uses interpreters to execute remote code, but Apple simply doesn't allow such explorations so we don't know what's out there.
Post reply on HN